Times journalist tries text messaging in the simulator (Source: Times)

Drivers who text while driving are more dangerous than those under the influence of alcohol or marijuana

A British study done by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) for the British Royal Automobile Club Foundation indicates it's more dangerous to send text messages while driving even when compared to drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The study showed that drivers who text and drive become more than one third slower than if they were coherent and not texting – this was compared to a person at the DUI limit or under the influence of marijuana. Text messaging lowered reaction time by 35 percent, while people high on marijuana slowed down 21 percent and those who were drunk slowed down by 12 percent.

On top of those findings, people reading or writing text messages drifted out of their lane more than people who were focused solely on driving. Texters also had a more difficult maintaining a safe distance from cars around them.

Around half of British drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 text while driving, the RAC Foundation said.

"When texting, drivers are distracted by taking their hand off the wheel to use their phone, by trying to read small text on the phone display and by thinking about how to write their message," said Dr. Nick Reed, TRL senior human factors researcher. "This combination of factors resulted in the impairments to reaction time and vehicle control that place the driver at a greater risk than having consumed alcohol to the legal limit for driving."

The British Department for Transport, in response to the increased danger of texting while driving, has increased the ticket for using a cell phone while driving. In addition to increasing the fine, the agency also has launched an ad campaign to inform drivers how dangerous it is to text and drive.

Most states in the United States do not have laws banning text messaging while driving, but drivers can often times be pulled over if they are seen driving recklessly while using their mobile phone. The state of California has banned talking on a cell phone without the use of a hands-free device, and a ban on text messaging while driving will likely go into effect in 2009.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's the world coming to when 1) people actually send text messages from their cell phones while driving, and 2) someone actually pays for a study to determine that such activity impairs said texters' driving ability? What's next, a study saying being asleep at the wheel impairs driving? This is common sense all around. Don't remove your attention from the speeding ton of metal you're supposedly controlling and don't waste money studying the obvious. Just arrest the perpetrators and put them against the wall.

Did you read the article? I think you're missing the point -- the study wasn't just to say simply that texting while driving was dangerous. It was to also point out that it is MORE dangerous than drinking or being impaired by drugs while driving.

Many people try to pass off texting while driving as harmless, but the implications -- at least from this study -- appear to be much greater.

Yes, but some activities take your eyes away from the road more (or impair you more). I couldn't reasonably drive and text at the same time safely, but I could reasonably drive and drink a soda or drive and snack on a candy bar.

I think common sense does apply, but in the world we live in most people dont have any common sense and it seems that by spending money on a study, the authorities can reach a wider audience with their message.

If by doing that, the study saves a life... is it worth it?I would say 100% yes.

OK, so if you live in a state that doesn't have a law banning texting while driving then:

1. Get sh@tfaced drunk or high2. Drive a car3. When you get arrested, sue the state using the study showing that texting is more dangerous, but not illegal.4. Live the life of luxury on the money from the lawsuit

Actually, it shows that texting while driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving at the DUI limit, which is not very much, mind you. How many people that are going to drink and drive actually drive at the DUI limit? Not a majority for sure, though texting is probably still more dangerous up to a certain point over the DUI limit.

quote: I could reasonably drive and drink a soda or drive and snack on a candy bar

But maybe someone can't. What that person is doing wrong isn't eating while driving because then you would be wrong to eat while driving too, even though you say you can do it safely. What they're doing wrong is putting other peoples health, property in danger or impeding traffic.

Well well well... if I drop my cellphone while driving and texting it's like "oh well, it was a bad idea anyhow". If you're drinking piping hot coffee and you spill the stuff in your precious new car with light colored seats you're bound to be headed straight for an accident not to mention that your body will demand that you pay attention to something that is burning hot. If you're wearing a nice suit and are headed to a special occassion, if a cellphone falls on your shirt it doesn't matter, if lettuce and ketchup fall on your shirt you're gonna freak out.

It's certainly not clear cut. It really depends on how familiar you are with your phone and those features and on how familiar you are with your car. Most car accidents happen in the first 3 months of ownership. We drive like a bunch of jerks, that's why our speed limits are nice and slow... but it's a vicious circle... the slower the limit, the more bored we get, and the more stupid stuff we do.

You know, just the other day I did something way more stupid than texting, but you'd never bust my chops for it. I was driving a car I had never driven before (so it wasn't an automatic activity) and I forgot to adjust the mirrors, it was dark out and I was already on the highway. The controls were nowhere to be found... I finally found them but not before driving like a total jerk for while.

You can mix automatic activities fairly well, if texting is automatic for you then good. Texting cannot become an emergency, so I like that aspect of it. The same cannot be said about driving with kids, with dark drinks (specially hot ones), or arguing with your spouse.

Overall I am a super safe driver, safer than most... I never make sudden turns when someone says "Oh turn here!"... such a stupid thing to do, yet most people turn immediatly such that their tires squeal. I never shove my car across lanes last minute if I miss an intersection. And I also text at times. I'm not saying it's smart... but I am saying that "it depends".

I think stopping drunk driving is quite different. You DO stop your sober self from texting or even from a phone call (at least I do) if a driving situation comes up. Every single judgement call is better when you're sober, so stay sober.

The most that would be needed to, would be a rule requiring the driver to keep both hands on the weel at all times, except for when one hand is needed to do something actually related with the driving. That way, any behaviour that could be harmful would be covered without having to get deep into detail of what behaviour is more or less dangerous.

What would you suggest? As the posted above stated - many vehicles come with steering wheel controls (should be standard, I think). People seem content to turn a blind eye to traffic crashes, as if there is no way to stop them. The World Health Organization released a report indicating that traffic deaths are one of the biggest killers that we know of are expected to increase by 80% by 2020 as more developing nations get cars. 1.2 million people per year die in situations that could be entirely prevented with proper training and improved safety technology.

I want a study to find out how dangerous smoking while driving is. It's got to be bad - long periods of time with only one hand available for steering, worrying about where you're ashing, starting fires, burning legs, &c.

This makes it easier to justify legislation banning certain activities when driving.

With "driving recklessly" you have to prove that the person was driving recklessly, which may be hard. However if you can prove the driver was using their mobile phone at the time (eyewitness accounts, phone records, etc) then the case becomes far easier to prove, especially with this study being available to justify that it is very reckless, far worse than drunk driving.

People underestimate the problem that taking the handset in your hand while driving, be it for making a call or, much worse, for texting, implies.Common sense dictates you should stop the car to engage in such activities...But what do most of the people know about sense?

I agree with the first poster, it's a pathetic world one in which you have to actually say out loud that texting while driving is dangerous, or for what matters, putting a disclaimer on a bottle saying "do not eat the bottle, might be harmful for your health".

When you ask people who do it, of course you are going to get a biased opinion. Same reason that 80% of DT respondents seem to think people who get busted for pirating software/music never really commited a crime and they should receive a slap on the wrist at the very most.

For the story, I know that even holding the phone makes me drive like sh-- so I don't see how texting (which I don't do) could be any less of an imparement for me.

oh yeah, I passed a teen driving on Interstate 90 the other day. Scare the hell out of me, shes weaving from one lane to another. I finally get up the guts, floor it to pass her, and I see that she is texting. Damn her, where are highway patrol when you need them?? She was speeding, doing 65, texting. I was terrified to pass her wiht my family in the car ,she was going from one lane, halfway into the other lane repeatedly. IDIOTS! Is texting your boyfriend or your best friend about whatever so important that your willing to put the lives of other people on the line? Get some common sense please!

I've never understood the impulse by many to PASS someone who is clearly driving while impaired. You are much safer from them if you are BEHIND them than if you are IN FRONT of them! Besides, if she was speeding as you say, why do you need to PASS her? Is she not speeding fast enough for you?

I prefer to be in front of poor drivers also because, if that driver goes totally out of control, the chances of you getting caught up in the melee are greater from behind than from the front.

Consider this, YOU might be able to avoid someone going out of control but what about another driver? One that might be half asleep and suddenly startled by another car going out of control and overreact, getting you caught up in a mess. It's better to be in front of potential dangers than behind them.

Consider this. You've managed to get in front of this distracted driver but you foolishly decide to stop at a light that happens to be red. The distracted driver doesn't notice the light (or you stopped at it,) guess what happens then?

Unlikely? How about you pass them and get stuck behind another driver who is foolishly going the speed limit. The distracted driver again doesn't notice and fails to slow down. Or maybe you have to slow down to safely make your exit ramp. Or now that you've put a safe distance between you and crazy driver X only to find the speed trap first. Fun.

If that girl caused an accident involving another vehicle, the wrecked ones would fall behind and catch you at any given moment.Same if she just gets her car out of control and starts spinning, it will affect you.

Getting away of those people is important for your life.Yes, she was speeding, but she wasn't going 100mph so you could safely assume "she'll be far away in a few moments so it won't affect me".

The context of the drivers around you should always be the first variable influencing your driving decisions, then the laws.

If one given day you are driving in a 30mph limited area and everybody behind you is approaching fast at, lets say, 75mph, you'd better disobey the law and go a bit faster if you don't wanna be ran over (this is just a hypothetical and crude example, but I think it's illustrative of what I try to say)

quote: If that girl caused an accident involving another vehicle, the wrecked ones would fall behind and catch you at any given moment.

If an accident occurs in front of you and you can not slow down enough to avoid it - you are following too closely. I'd much rather be caught up in a traffic jam than be the person who got rear ended by a distracted driver.

You mean to tell me that you intentionally try to outrun a drunk/impaired/distracted driver? Speed kills - the faster you are travelling the more likely you are to be injured or killed. Speed limits are set for a reason.

quote: If one given day you are driving in a 30mph limited area and everybody behind you is approaching fast at, lets say, 75mph, you'd better disobey the law and go a bit faster if you don't wanna be ran over.

Let's think about this for a second... If the speed limit is 30 mph that means one of three things. 1. The street you are on has blind or sharp turns. 2. The street you are on is in a residential area. 3. You are in a school zone. If people behind you are doing 70 they had better slow down so they don't hit you - if you feel that you are imminent danger pull over and let them pass. If you were to speed up in this scenario the damage to you would be far greater if an accident were to occur and as an added bonus it would be your fault, not the people behind you.

I'm not the best driver, but drivers like you don't belong on the road.

These studies are meant to say "I told you so!" to the idiots who do it. Because it's like trying to convince someone that any chemical altering drug, like weed, heroin, adderall, etc is going to cause some long-term symptons, like memory loss. It just seems to not get to their heads and they think their drugs are the safest thing they've did.

My boyfriend's 350z has seen it's days of people texting on the road. They certainly don't stay in their lane, and they try to put the blame on you if they end up swiping your car.

In all, like I said, these studies are meant for those who think they're safe doing what they're doing and who think they're really not harming anyone doing what they're doing.

People who smoke weed generally tend to be more careful and less reckless. Adderall (amphetamine salts, similar to what they used to give soldiers during the wars) tend to speed up your reaction process but will make you a more aggressive driver. What is more dangerous, someone who is slightly slower but more cautious or someone who is tweeking out their brackets and racing to their dealer?

I'm not advocating drug use while driving, I'm just trying to say that the whole picture is not represented. Reducing reaction time is not the be all and end all of safe driving. Rather it is the combination of good reaction times and non-aggressive driving that would be a better representation of the truth.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer